348 EPHESIA2fS, EPISTLE TO THE
EPHESIAJ^S, EPISTLE TO THE
the Christology of Col. and Eph. is embodied in Ph 2*'^'.
It has been noted as un-Pauline that the result of the Cross should be seen in the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile ratlier than in relation to sin. But this objection is due to imperfect exegesis. It is because the Cross frees all, both Jew and Gentile, from sin that they are able to come into the unity of Christ. The emphasis on individual redemption is just as much present in Eph 2''^** as in Ro 1-7. The Pauline doctrine is stated directly in F (cf. 2^^). The annulling of the Law by the Cross (2^^) is the very point of St. Paul's argument in the Galatian controversy (Gal 3'^, etc. ; cf. also the parallel passage in Col 2'^). The thought in Ephesians may be carried rather further, but it is wholly Pauline. That there is no definite allusion to expiation or propitiation is not of any real significance. The idea was unnecessary to the pur- pose of Ephesians.
Again it is said that there is in Eph. no hint of the Parousia, the coming of Christ in the near future, and that the idea is replaced, on Johannine lines, by a vista of long ages before the final judgment (2" 3-'). But the reference in 2'' is pro- bably to ages afto' the Second Coming, as is perhaps shown by the parallel in 1-' (see § 3 above), and this niaj' also be the meaning in 3^^. In any case, the same language occurs in Ro 1-^ 9^ and in Gal P, a close parallel to 3^'. References to the Parousia may perhaps be seen in 4^" 5®. It is true that there is no emphasis on the doctrine, but St. Paul was never a fanatic about it, as 2 Thess. shows (cf. Ro 11-5).
Other points which are said to be rather Johan- nine than Pauline also find parallels in the earlier Epistles. Love is emphasized as the relation of Christ to us (2^ 5-- ^s ; cf. Gal 22», Ro S^s- 37), as our relation to Christ (6^ ; cf. 1 Co 16''^-) and to one another (42- is 52- ^s ; cf. 1 Th 5'^). Cf. the Hymn to Love in 1 Co 13. The emphasis on the liglit of Christ amid the darkness (5^''* ; cf. 4^^), while typical of St. John, is found in 1 Th 5^- ^, 2 Co 6'^ Ro 1312.
(d) The Holy Spirit. — Great stress is laid in Eph. upon the Holy Spirit as inspiring the life of the Church (1'3 21s 35- 1« 43-4-30 5.8 giT), xhis is quite Pauline (cf. l'^-" with 2 Co p2, 43-4 with 1 Co 12^-'3 ; see also Gal 5i« 24, Ro W^).
(e) Man and sin. — This is the special subject of Rom. and not of Ephesians. Yet the hints in Eph. are quite in accordance with St. Paul's earlier teaching. The doctrine of the cdp^, the root-idea in the conception of original sin, appears in 2^. The characteristic emphasis on the grace of God which saves man by faith and not by works is found in 2^"^ (cf. 3'2). Predestination to life is the theme of !■*• ""i'*, though the problem of free-will is not raised, being unessential to the matter in hand.
It has been suggested that there is an un-Pauline emphasis on knowledge, more on the lines of the Fourth Gospel [e.g. Jn 17*), in P- "' 4'3. But this does not really conflict with St. Paul!s opposition to the wisdom of this M'orld in 1 Co 1-4, from which the knowledge alluded to (iiriyvwffis ; cf. Armitage Robinson, Ephe-iians, p. 248 ft'. ) is a very different thing. Cf. also Ro lO^, 1 Co 1-* 2^- \ Ph P, Col P- 1» 22 S'o.
This sketch of the doctrine of Eph. will serve to show how closely it resembles in most of its details the doctrine not only of Colossians, but of the earlier Pauline Epistles. It is only in em])liasis and in the sustained, almost lyrical, exposition that there is any real contrast. And this may well be explained by a difference of circumstances both in St. Paul's own position and in the audience to which he is writing.
7. Style and language.— (1) Language. — The vocabulary as a whole presents jihenomena very similar to those of the other Pauline letters. There are 37 words not used elsewhere in the NT (as compared with 33 in Gal., 41 in Phil., 95 in 2 Cor.), and 39 Mhich occur elsewhere, but not in the recognized Pauline writings (Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser- nnd Kolosserbricfe, p. 101 f., wiiose list is critically discussed by Zahn, op. cit. pp. 518- 522; cf. also Mofiatt, 0/7. cit. p. 385 f.). This number is not in itself suspicious, and Zahn's analysis has shown that the majority of the words are of little significance. Some are due to the occasion and the turn of the metaphor, e.g. those that occur in the account of the Christian armour. Some — e.g. dve/jLos (4^"*), iiSojp (52") — are terms for which no synonym was readily available. Some are cognate to forms used elsewhere by St. Paul, e.g. KaTapricr/MOS (i^-), TrpocTKapTiprjcrts (6^*), dyvoia (4'*). And against these are to be set about 20 words found only, outside Eph., in the earlier Pauline Epistles.